add_entity

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the tool writes the file and explains the reload behavior when TrenchBroom-HL has unsaved edits, including the default of keeping the editor version. This is valuable, though the phrasing leaves some ambiguity about the exact consequence of that default.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the most important side-effect. It uses one somewhat run-on sentence with semicolons and dashes, but every clause earns its place and there is no wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity—writing a file, interacting with an editor, and optional parameters—the description covers the key behavioral caveat and the schema covers all parameters. It does not discuss return values or what happens if the editor is not running, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds examples for classname and clarifies the 'point entity' concept, but it does not add substantive parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents for origin, properties, map_path, and classname.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('point entity') with concrete examples, and the 'point entity' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_brush_box. It clearly states the side effect of writing the file, leaving no doubt about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is the tool for adding point entities rather than brushes or property updates, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as add_brush_box or set_entity_properties. Usage context is present but left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.